Outten & Golden: Empowering Employees in the Workplace

Archive for the ‘gig economy’ Category

Federal court deals a blow to Uber, Lyft drivers trying to unionize in Seattle

Wednesday, May 16th, 2018

A two-year legal battle over a Seattle, Washington law allowing Uber and Lyft drivers to unionize was prolonged again this week, after a federal appeals court ruled Friday that it can be challenged under federal antitrust law.

The first-in-the-nation law was unanimously passed by the Seattle City Council in 2015 and sought to give ride-share drivers the opportunity to unionize and bargain for better pay and benefits.

But it was swiftly challenged by business and conservative groups, namely the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, representing Uber and Lyft, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, and the Freedom Foundation. In a 2016 lawsuit against the city of Seattle, the Chamber of Commerce claimed “the ordinance will burden innovation, increase prices, and reduce quality and services for consumers.”

One legal challenge was dismissed last year, but the law remained on hold until other legal challenges were resolved. On Friday, three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously agreed that Seattle’s law is not exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act, sending it back to U.S. District Court.

Uber spokesman Caleb Weaver called the decision “a win for rideshare drivers, riders and the entire Seattle community.”

The Teamsters Local 117 and members of the App-Based Drivers Association (ABDA) expressed their frustration and disappointment in the wake of Friday’s ruling.

“Anti-trust laws were put in place to protect the little guy from monopolistic practices from large corporations, not to shield a company like Uber — valued at over $70 billion — from negotiating with its workers over fair pay and working conditions,” said Don Creery, Uber and Lyft driver and member of the ABDA leadership council.

One bright spot for proponents of Seattle’s law: the Ninth Circuit judges agreed in their ruling that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) can cover independent contractors, like Uber and Lyft drivers.

This week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), along with other Senate Democrats, introduced legislation that would make it easier for people working in the gig economy to prove they are employees and thus be able to organize and collectively bargain. While the legislation doesn’t stand a chance in the current Republican-controlled Congress, Bloomberg notes that it has the backing of potential Democratic presidential candidates and could be a sign of things to come if Democrats are able to regain control of either chamber this fall.

This article was originally published at ThinkProgress on May 13, 2018. Reprinted with permission. 

About the Author: Kiley Kroh is a senior editor at ThinkProgress.

California court decision poses a major threat to Uber and Lyft: minimum wage laws

Tuesday, May 1st, 2018

The business model at Uber and other “gig economy” companies could take a big hit in California, thanks to a new state Supreme Court ruling—the companies might be forced to follow labor laws like paying the minimum wage. Currently, many companies classify their workers as independent contractors who aren’t eligible for a raft of legal protections, protections that cost employers money. But the California Supreme Court ruled that delivery drivers for Dynamex Operations West are eligible for minimum wage and overtime protections:

The ruling applies to disputes under state Industrial Welfare Commission orders that set standards for minimum wages and overtime payments required for all workers who are classified as employees, but not for independent contractors. Companies like Dynamex, as well as Uber and Lyft, have classified their drivers as contractors and argued that they have enough control over their working lives — setting their own hours, with the freedom to drive for other companies — to be called independent.

But the court said the company, to justify contractor status, must prove, first, that the worker is free, in everyday tasks, from the company’s “control and direction”; second, that the work is “outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business”; and third, that the worker is regularly engaged in an independent occupation or business of the same type he or she is performing for the company.

For example, [Chief Justice Tani] Cantil-Sakauye said, a store that hires an outside plumber to fix a leak, or an electrician to install a new line, could consider them contractors. But a clothing manufacturer that hires seamstresses who work at home to make dresses that the company will sell has hired them to perform work in its usual line of business and must pay them as employees.

The ruling did not address other issues, such as payment of work expenses, workers’ compensation and unemployment benefits, which are covered by separate laws. But Kevin Ruf, a lawyer for about 300 Dynamex drivers who will now be allowed to pursue their case as a class action, said the court’s rationale should help workers seeking employee status overall.

This isn’t over—companies will fight this out case by case, spending huge amounts of money on lawyers to avoid having to pay their workers minimum wage and overtime (and other benefits and protections that might follow). But it’s a step in the right direction.

This blog was originally published at DailyKos on May 1, 2018. Reprinted with permission.

About the Author: Laura Clawson is labor editor at DailyKos.

Your Rights Job Survival The Issues Features Resources About This Blog